“Transwomen are women”

[BertrandRussell]

There are plenty of angsty threads on this topic, but please can this one not be.

Please can someone who thinks that transwomen are actually, literally women tell me the reasoning behind the thought? If you have come to this conclusion because you have read scientific research, please could you link to it.

I will only respond with “Thank you” or to give you clarification if you ask for it,and please will anyone else interested do the same.

Could swear that had paragraphs when I wrote it.

Problem is the law is due to change hence trying to work out the logistics of it all

Yes, I know. It is possible to be critical of the law changing while not regressing to the pre-Gender Recognition Act position. That operated very harshly towards people who have a genuine condition where they feel that they were born the wrong gender (and that condition is recognised by medical professionals). If your position is that someone with XY chromosomes is always a man and refuse to acknowledge that they wish to live as a woman, then that is very harsh towards those with genuine gender dysphoria.

It depends on your definition of women. Biologically they are not women of course, not quite men either if they have transitioned either. But sociologically, the way the behave, interact with others, the roles they fulfill in our society many fit within the remit of womanhood (the distinctions between the seces has been eroded to such an extent that a man wearing a dress and taking a female name is enough really-these are the basic requirements of modern womanhood afterall).

Of course they are men! Just ones that are presenting as stereotypical women.

What's your opinion on Danielle muscato?

If your position is that someone with XY chromosomes is always a man and refuse to acknowledge that they wish to live as a woman, then that is very harsh towards those with genuine gender dysphoria

Life is harsh! And mainly more towards women than men.

If I learn Nigerian, wear Nigerian dress, cook Nigerian food and go and live in Nigeria, can I declare that I am, in fact, Nigerian and always have been on the inside, even though outwardly I am a white Yorkshirewoman?

Well, yes. If you mean yoruba or something instead of 'Nigerian' which isn't a language. In the same way that my husband, who was born in Asia, is Scottish, because he moved to Scotland, became fluent in English, married a Scotswoman and assimilated into the culture. Or are you saying he'll always be Asian because only white people with Scots ancestry can be Scottish? Which I don't think you mean to say, but it's actually a good analogy to the trans woman conversation.

If I say 'yes, you could be', that's because I'm defining 'Nigerian' as a culture, a nationality, a way of life. You're defining it as skin colour. In the same way, some people define 'woman' as 'genital configuration observed at birth'. It's a biological thing for them, much as 'Nigerian' is, I guess, a biological thing for you. If, on the other hand, you define 'woman' as a social role, a construct with elements of socialised behaviour, societal role, style of interaction, visual presentation, personal identity etc, then of course someone can become a woman.

It's about how we define things, and definitions are always complex and subjective, in science and in all things.

Life is harsh! And mainly more towards women than men

Nice. I can assure you that life is pretty harsh towards people with gender dysphoria too. While I share the caution about self-definition under the proposed reforms, I think many of the views on here are fairly bigoted and along the lines of 'it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' type thing.

It has been possible to change gender for nearly 15 years now. Can you explain to me how that has negatively impacted on anyone to the extent that it warrants removing rights from a group of people who were only recently granted them.

My position is that if you have medically diagnosed gender dysphoria, you should be permitted to legally change gender, which is the current legal position.

From a philosophical point of view and going back to dear old Descartes, I cannot see how sex or gender comes into the 'I think therefore I am'. When we consider our own sensations of our own body, then then if we allowed the 'brain map' idea, then I could imagine gender dysphoria if the body you had did not fit the map. Or if that was absent, dysphoria at the social level if others did not treat you according to the social role you wanted to fill. But the brain map idea, whilst it makes sense for some birds where the male has a totally different brain structure to females (a big lump for singing I believe, some finch??? And you get really interesting chimeras where one hemisphere male and the other is female......). But our best science says that there isn't such a difference in humans and our brains are much more of a mish-mash. When you add in that our brains develop along with our personalities in society for years......
To bring in the bad analogy with homosexuality, we develop in a society where we work out there are two sexes pretty early on. I can see that a propensity to feel sexually attracted to those who are similar to oneself could be innate without the brain being sexed (and of course not all of us believe homosexuality is innate or requires a gay brain!).

Thou shalt not needlessly multiply hypotheses and frankly I cannot see the justification for either an innately sexed brain or an innately homosexual brain. A propensity to develop as someone who is attracted to those physically like oneself, that may explain some homosexuality. Someone who has issues establishing a comfortable relationship with your own developing body, we have various bodily dysmorphias. And a target location error where a male becomes their own object of interest, Anne Lawrence written about their own autogynephilia. But I cannot see the need to introduce an innate sense of self that is sexed because a small set of people currently find it a more useful or alluring belief. Especially since the science of sex and the brain takes us the other way and plasticity and variability seems to be the major trends.

Lancelottie that's interesting - I too feel wrong all dressed up in a v feminine way and actually to the extent that I was saying to someone the other day that it's one of the reasons I don't go out much as I don't feel I fit in to the "girls night out" thing - and I hate that phrase too. However, it's all fairly superficial stuff about appearance, and for me the response would be to have a society that's more tolerant of difference, it doesn't really affect my sense of self.

Can you explain to me how that has negatively impacted on anyone to the extent that it warrants removing rights from a group of people who were only recently granted them

Can you explain what rights are you talking about that the group of people have that they didn't have before they were granted?

Can you explain what rights are you talking about that the group of people have that they didn't have before they were granted?

The right not to face discrimination due to their transgender status, the right to be legally recognised as their new gender, the right to have personal ID documents issued under their new gender. Before 2013, it included the right to be recognised as their new gender for the purposes of marriage.

Are you really unaware of the Gender Recognition Act or the fact that it conferred new rights on trans people??

Who said anything about removing rights?

Well, yes. If you mean yoruba or something instead of 'Nigerian' which isn't a language. In the same way that my husband, who was born in Asia, is Scottish, because he moved to Scotland, became fluent in English, married a Scotswoman and assimilated into the culture. Or are you saying he'll always be Asian because only white people with Scots ancestry can be Scottish? Which I don't think you mean to say, but it's actually a good analogy to the trans woman conversation

But race is a social construct, particularly in the way you describe it where you are focusing on cultural signifiers rather than the physical differences between different ethnic groups.

For me it is biology and chromosomes which make me a woman whereas I have zero interest in identifying as "Scottish" just because I live in Scotland.

I would like to remove the right for MtT to be housed in a female prison.

Who said anything about removing rights?

Apologies for the confusion if I misunderstood. I was under the impression that some people on here advocated that there should be NO recognition of trans people and that legal change of gender (which we currently have) should not be possible. That someone with gender dysphoria should always be referred to by their biological status. That would involve removing existing rights.

If your position in fact is that we keep the current position under the GRA, then I agree with you.

I think many of the views on here are fairly bigoted and along the lines of 'it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' type thing

Have you actually read the thread. This is about those that tell us 'transwomen are women' and trying to work out how they are women - this is nothing to do with gay men.

If, on the other hand, you define 'woman' as a social role, a construct with elements of socialised behaviour, societal role, style of interaction, visual presentation, personal identity etc, then of course someone can become a woman

But then many 'biological women' neither fit the description nor identify with that role.

Ateardrop, are you familiar with analogies?

Have you actually read the thread

I have and I have read countless other threads like it. I know it is not about gay men, it was an analogy. People are becoming ultra-hardline and saying that we should never recognise that someone wants to live under a new gender. I completely agree that we should not allow casual self-identification but I do not support removing rights given to a small number of people who identify as a different gender and wish to live as that gender. Being a woman is about a lot more than biology- it is also deeply psychological, even if women say that there is nothing psychological that makes them feel female. For trans people, they feel very strongly that they identify more with the opposite sex and their distress is alleviated if they are permitted to live and be recognised as that gender.

wherethevioletsgrow - in 2004 no transwomen were claiming to be actually literally women. This is a new phenomenon. Among other things this has led to 'femal penis', lesbians being called 'weird vagina fetishists' (and worse), the casting of any discussion around female biology as transphobic, and has led to the erosion of women's rights by making it harder for organisations to make a distinction as they are permitted to do, by using the single sex exceptions in the equality act.

I think it's worth a thread to try to understand this extraordinary claim.

But then many 'biological women' neither fit the description nor identify with that role

I think it is more that they are identified as being women and treated as women by the rest of society. It's more than just meeting feminine stereotypes (and btw not all trans people meet the stereotypes of their preferred gender either). Even if I do not conform to traditional feminine stereotypes such as makeup, high heels, dresses etc, it is very important to me that people recognise me as a woman. If suddenly the remainder of society started referring to me as male, calling me 'he', it would cause me significant distress. I presume that trans people feel a similar level of distress that I would feel if society insisted on calling me a man.

Ateardrop, are you familiar with analogies?

Never heard of them. Are they allergies that think they are something they are not?

Pencils okay, although under the 2004 act, the person is issued with a new birth certificate, erasing any record of the birth-sex...

Of course I do not think that biology can be changed. But there are people on this or other threads who do not think trans people should be acknowledged at all and should always be treated as and referred to according to their birth-sex and that we should revert to the pre-2004 position. That is what I have an issue with.

But what is 'being treated as a woman' and 'living as a woman'?

Other than for biological reasons men and women should be treated the same. What can 'living as a woman' mean if not fulfilling stereotypes?

What new gender is this though?

Not Adele and Eve?